News
SpaceX hot-fires Falcon 9 with Crew Dragon aboard prior to first orbital launch
SpaceX has completed a hot-fire test of Falcon 9 B1051 at Pad 39A, hopefully demonstrating that the company’s first human-rated rocket is ready to support the orbital launch debut of its Crew Dragon spacecraft.
Given NASA’s uniquely conservative tendencies, it’s hard to extrapolate from SpaceX’s well-worn launch operations. Nevertheless, if the data from this static fire show a healthy spacecraft and rocket, SpaceX will likely be well on their way to the first (uncrewed) orbital launch of Crew Dragon, currently expected no earlier than (NET) the second half of February.
TEST FIRE of #SpaceX Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon at 1600 ET / 2100 UTC! Appeared to go well. pic.twitter.com/a66CnBv7fU
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 24, 2019
In an intriguing sign that Crew Dragon was fully fueled and ready to abort at any second, SpaceX Dragon recovery vessel GO Searcher was stationed in the Atlantic Ocean just a few miles East of Falcon 9’s static fire attempt at Pad 39A. In other words, if Falcon 9 were to have experienced a potentially catastrophic anomaly during propellant loading or Merlin 1D ignition, Crew Dragon would have likely ignited its 8 Super Draco abort thrusters to rapidly accelerate away from the rocket, theoretically saving itself (and any astronauts aboard). GO Searcher would have then quickly recovered the forlorn spacecraft after it deployed its parachutes and landed in the ocean, essentially a replay of the Pad Abort test SpaceX engineers and technicians completed in 2015.
Designed with the sole intention of ensuring that Crew Dragon is capable of safely aborting an anomalous launch and carrying astronauts to safety at almost any point between ignition and orbit, that same launch abort system (LAS) also offers the option for Crew Dragon to escape a potentially damaging situation even without a crew aboard. In the latter case, Crew Dragon’s hardware would be preserved for potential refurbishment and reuse, likely saving SpaceX and NASA tens of millions of dollars (if not $100M+) and cutting months off of the inevitable delays that would follow. Crew Dragon’s integrated LAS – meaning that the spacecraft brings it wherever it goes – is completely unique in the history of crewed spaceflight and ultimately offers unbeatable protection for any astronauts or passengers entrusted to it.
Thanks in large part to undoubtedly disruptive NASA demands that may well be far more conservative than necessary, SpaceX extensively re-engineered Falcon 9 for ease of manufacturing and extreme reliability, both of which go hand in hand. Among dozens of minor to major changes, M1D and MVac engines were modified to mitigate minor problems with turbopump blades fracturing, overall avionics redundancy was upgraded, and Falcon’s ultra-high-pressure helium storage tanks (COPVs) were drastically redesigned.
These upgrades were ultimately integrated into the iteration known as Block 5. According to SpaceX’s updated Falcon 9 and Heavy payload user guide, “[aside from the payload interface], all first- and second-stage vehicle systems are the same [for Dragon and satellite launches], indicating that the same exact rocket is produced for any given single-stick Falcon 9 launch. This means that all SpaceX customers, US government or not, benefit directly from the reliability demanded by NASA and the US military for crewed and uncrewed launches. It also means that SpaceX’s production system remains exceptionally simple, as just a single upper stage and booster variation is needed for the vast majority of the company’s launches. Falcon Heavy requires a unique center core booster and nosecones but is otherwise unchanged from Falcon 9.
According to Russian media, SpaceX is now targeting Crew Dragon’s launch debut NET February 16th. Liftoff will occur around 8am EDT (13:00 UTC) if that timeframe holds.
The Russians are claiming NET 16th, but again – don’t go booking any flights. That may not stick.
PS This is not unexpected. Lots of first time (unique mission) reviews, ISS in play, etc. etc. It’ll be mostly paperwork related.
— Chris B – NSF (@NASASpaceflight) January 21, 2019
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
